Identifying the problem of uncertainty determination and communication in infrastructural development + powerpoint

In civil engineering infrastructural projects many different parties are involved into different phases during the lifetime of a construction; that are consultants, contractors, architects, suppliers of subsurface and surface data, governmental bodies, politicians, the client himself, etc. The communication between these different parties is difficult. This is essentially caused by a lack of quality and uncertainty information concerning collected data and derived real world representations. Particularly in subsurface geotechnical representations, uncertainties are high, since only sparse information is available for the interpretation process. This leads to the introduction of “interpretational uncertainties” into the representation; that are, uncertainties introduced by the expert while using own knowledge and experience for the data interpretation. To determine possible ways of data quality and uncertainty handling in subsurface representations, interviews with professionals were carried out and companies (engineering/ consulting/ insurance companies, etc.) visited. Further, a number of Dutch geoportals were checked regarding their provision of quality and uncertainty information. This paper exposes the influence of the expert knowledge on the quality and uncertainty of a subsurface real world representation. It also summarizes the results of visits and interviews as well as the content of the various geoportals visited. Common approaches for the implementation of quality and uncertainty expressions in subsurface real world representations are presented. Finally, an outlook is given on the planned development of methodologies to describe the “interpretational uncertainty” in quality and uncertainty expressions and to include these, together with additional information, in the metadata of the subsurface real world representation.

[1]  Austin S.Babrow,et al.  Managing Uncertainty in Illness Explanation: An Application of Problematic Integration Theory , 1999 .

[2]  P. Atkinson,et al.  Uncertainty in remote sensing and GIS , 2002 .

[3]  E. Beresford,et al.  Uncertainty and the shaping of medical decisions. , 1991, The Hastings Center report.

[4]  Arta Dilo,et al.  Representation of and reasoning with vagueness in spatial information : a system for handling vague objects , 2006 .

[5]  K. Hall Reviewing intuitive decision‐making and uncertainty: the implications for medical education , 2002, Medical education.

[6]  Simon W. Houlding,et al.  Uncertainty, Sampling Control and Risk Assessment , 1994 .

[7]  Robert Hack,et al.  Three and more dimensional modelling in geo-engineering , 2006 .

[8]  Roberto Lattuada,et al.  3 Three-Dimensional Representations and Data Structures in GIS and AEC , 2006 .

[9]  Peter van Oosterom,et al.  Computers, Environment and Urban Systems , 2009 .

[10]  Michael G. Tait,et al.  Implementing geoportals: applications of distributed GIS , 2005, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[11]  M. Goodchild,et al.  Uncertainty in geographical information , 2002 .

[12]  A. Babrow,et al.  The many meanings of uncertainty in illness: toward a systematic accounting. , 1998, Health communication.

[13]  Simon W. Houlding,et al.  3D Geoscience Modeling: Computer Techniques for Geological Characterization , 1995 .

[14]  B. Orlic,et al.  Predicting Subsurface Conditions for Geotechnical Modelling , 1997 .

[15]  Philippe Smets,et al.  Imperfect Information: Imprecision and Uncertainty , 1996, Uncertainty Management in Information Systems.

[16]  Paul A. Longley,et al.  The emergence of geoportals and their role in spatial data infrastructures , 2005, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[17]  D. Brashers Communication and Uncertainty Management. , 2001 .